This article like its writer is garbage.

Not quite Jonathan J Ariel ...

It was George W Bush who failed his allies, disappointed his friends, emboldened America’s Islamic enemies and diminished the US’s standing.

Obama is just expected to repair the damage left to him by his predecessor.

It's no use blaming it on Bush any more. He's not the commander-in-chief of the forces that are still killing people in Iraq. Obama pledged to withdraw them in 2007. We now know that all the reasons given for going to war with Iraq were lies. What's he still doing there? Don't tell me, let me guess.... weapons of mass destruction? How many Iraqis have been killed since Obama came to power?

Obama is a war criminal and belongs with Bush on the gallows.

Nonsense

Watch out Jonathan, your in for a good yelling at. I got yelled at for saying the same sort of thing before he was elected.

Never trust an orator to do anything, they are always too busy thinking of the effect of their next word rather than action.

A proper look at history shows that the only reason Churchill did not loose WW11 for the UK is that he was up against another orator.

At least the Romans knew what to do with an orator, when Cesar got too big for his boots.

Good article, thanks.

President Bush bashers are like PM Howard haters, always with us, just a whining drone to underline why their own heros aren't up to the task.

President Bush and PM Howard may not have been right in all they did, but PM Rudd and President Obama cannot be excused because of them.

More than substance, the current leaders of Australia and USA are the greatest spin artists of all time.

That will be their one liner in the history books, as the Americans say "big hat, no cattle".

huh? did somebody call me?

obama wasn't and isn't my hero. he has screwed up a lot, mostly by attempting bipartisanship with a republican party so rabid it should be shot. but jjplug said all that needs to be said. ariel is a clown.

Obama's unforgiveable 'crime' is the adoption of a more even-handed policy in the Middle East.

The "Tea party" movement, the "Birther" movement, the obstructionist Republican party, the peculiar Supreme Court decisions of late, and the good Sarah Palin, all seem to be indicating that the USA is becoming, if it is not already, ungovernable. Since they remain the most powerful military state on Earth these developments carry a very real risk for Australia and loony articles like this one only metaphorically pour petrol on the flames.

Pretty damn one-sided Mr Ariel. I'm reminded of that clip of Rumsfeld taken just prior to the collapse of the soviet union, when he assured us that the reason why the Americans couldn't spot the soviet subs on their radar, was that they must have developed some new, brilliant kind of technology. The idea that they didn't have them was inconceivable.

By which I mean, that if you've convinced yourself the other side is wrong, all you can see is the failures.

In the wake of the worst financial crisis since the 20s, the economy is still humming along and showing some dim signs of recovery.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/03/18/AR2010031804905.html?hpid=topnews

Seems pretty reasonable after what was heralded as economic armageddon.

On to the health bill.

In an effort to indicate that you actually analyse things and don't merely barrack for one side, I'd like to see where you've similarly critized the efforts of the previous administration when they ran into opposition.

Fact is, significant change brings about significant resistance. The fact that Obama may in fact pull off the most significant piece of social reform in half a decade shows that the comments that he was all talk and no action are rubbish.

So now the criticism shifts to public opinion. President Bush ran into significant opposition when launching two wars, however those on the right rarely criticise those on the basis that it was against the wishes of the public.

Regarding international relationships, that's where your commentary is the weakest. Firstly, the Iranians have been able to resist, largely because the 'great Satan' image of the US is much harder to project with Obama at the helm. That alone shows the benefits of not adopting hawkish policies. As for China, in the wake of 9-11 Bush embraced the Chinese because they echoed his tough on terror rhetoric. Obama's policies are merely a continuation.

As I said, this article is so one-sided it comes across as incredibly shallow. More partisanship rubbish, like that which emanates from the Republicans, who seem to have totally lost their marbles in the wake of losing government.

Jon J is at it again, rewriting history by distortion to support his disturbed malevolent view of the world. Your dislike for Obama would not have anything to do with his colour would it Jon J? Any observers who may find that enquiry interesting need only refer to his contribution to comment on the article, 'The Ethics Council: some inconvenient truths,' in association of others of the same racist hacks that proliferate OLO, Loudmouth and blairbar.

Its further significant of the omen Jon J refers to for justification of his misconstructions of where the focus for Americans should be, that the dogmatic aphorism he obviously subscribes to is, ‘never mind the quality, feel the width.’ For the havoc wreaked by George W. realised Obama ascending to leadership of an economy of which its debt equalled four times its national GDP, thanks to another aphorism and myth George W. pursued, ‘the ability of the market to regulate itself.’

Although I concur with his comparison of Obama to the Captain of the Titanic, except unlike the unfortunate Captain, Obama has the advantage of being aware of the safety measures removed by vested interest, that in his case realised the GFC, and the cheap components employed, and management negligence, in its construction, for pursuit of the same comparable vested interest.

For when you are facing such extensive damage the change of a new paradigm is required, a key benchmark for measure must inevitably be the extent of the damage, its common sense. For dramatic disruption requiring such change, by definition needs to be measured. For example, the unemployment rate has effectively remained static since George W, left office.

The 17% Jon J claims I suspect will be undoubtedly and consistently observed of his duplicitous intent, without substance and foundation if scrutinised.

Continued

Although Americans would obviously prefer Obama to be able to demonstrate improvement, I suspect of the racist proclivities demonstrated by Jon J on OLO, he would prefer Obama to be shining his shoes while he’s doing it.

Yes the ‘mug’ American voters who elected Obama, are the same mugs who elected George W., and if they vote out Obama, will inevitably vote in a protégé of George W. It was the same profile of mug Australian voters, according to the endearing descriptions of Jon J, who threw out Costellos’ workchoices, the ‘rabbits!’

“With the setting down of the sun daily,” must be a US Murdoch tabloid we haven’t heard of. As I write, the Health bill has been passed in the US, a reform with general consensus of its requirement, with reliable projections demonstrating their aging population potentially realising US bankruptcy by the mid to late half of this century without such reform, relevant to health care costs.

“Not only has he made diddly squat progress on foreign policy challenges, one could argue that he has regressed America’s influence in the world.” The defining influence of the ‘self centred’ legacy of George W. will be belligerence and militancy, stock and trade of the repressed disturbance of associate racists alike Jon J. Expressions alike ‘axis of evil,’ are perfectly legitimate for world diplomacy according to Jon J?

It would be less disingenuous of this disinformation of Jon J, if he applied balance to his misrepresentation of Israeli intent. Such as, the first reported international terrorist incident is identified of Israeli bombing of a hotel some half century ago, and we wont mention their recently UN confirmed raining of phosphorous ordnance upon a metropolitan area, including a UN compound with an attached school enclosure.

Predicting vaccuous racist diatribe from Jon J is as familiar as that infection prevalent of the disturbance of his bigotry, observed prolific.

2 words: "Pure rubbish".

The article seems somewhat unfair and dismissive on matters that have affected this Presidency to date.
Yes the Health Care bill , albeit watered down, has just passed one hurdle. Compromising. as Obama has done in this case to get the numbers to placate the Catholics by ruling out abortion, (yes, people from his own party), is just one example of the difficulty in getting legislation through the mostly compromised elected politicians. No one gave a damn about health care, particularly not Bush, and as a risk of offending those who think that man had any merit, even Americans think Bush was the worst ever occupying that office.
But if one answers one of the comments above, the people who have died in Iraq since Obama came to power, the number would be very low and those who have died did so from their own kind, internal Iraqi problems, not as a result of the US presence. That is well reported.
Obama has made mistakes. Yes, Rahm Emanueal was the first, a Jew who has fought as part of the Israel Army but NEVER in the US military and he is the Chief of Staff. Now there is a distinction. Then, of course we have Ms Clinton with more political baggage coming as a Senator from New York. Fair and honest advice from those two? Hardly. Then there is AIPAC, the insidious agents of a foreign country who have compromised most of the elected politicians in that country to make any effort on a Middle East settlement out of the question as the world has now noticed. So, if he had made mistakes it is accepting advisors who were thrust upon him by influences within his party. Yes, bad mistakes, bad judgement. Unforgiveable. But he didn't start a war, didn't lie as the Republicans have done for years about WMD's, and other matters while at the same time removing the personal liberties that the US has taken for granted since independece from Britain.
Great expectations from Obama, less than great results to date.

Continued

continued

A final comment. Choosing to quit Afghanistan right now would lead to Pakistan falling to the Taliban but unlike Israel, currently with over 200 undisclosed nuclear warheads, Pakistan has disclosed nuclear power as well.
Sleep on that frightening thought.

Who is this guy? Shakespeare's Ariel was an airy spirit. This one's just an air head. An unfair, pretty malicious attack on a President who, despite his human failings, is such an improvement on the last incumbent it's not funny, despite the terrible mess he was left. The comment by someone about Obama - big hat, no cattle - seems to me to apply so much more aptly to Bush.

My suggestion: Obama here, Ariel back to Virginia - the South - where he belongs.

Reckon some of you OLO's had better wake up.

Most of the ME problems now rest with Hillary, who doubtless deserved the title from veteran academics years ago as Silly Hillary.

Certainly the way she has recently virtually apologised to Netanyahu after giving him a previous warning about Jewish intrusions into Arab settlements, could possibly be very worrying for Obama.

Indeed, it might now take a future militarily atomic Iran as a balance against a foolishly fiesty Israel, a needed balance that Obama may be forced to agree with.

Certainly China could be watching with interest, as well as Russian atomic engineers having been working in Iran for quite a long time

Barrack Obama was always going to cause people in the know to say ‘told you so’ to the people who voted for him and thought that he was the answer to African Americans’ prayers. The only surprise is that it took so long for him to prove that voting for a politician because of the colour of his skin is not a good way to go about choosing politicians. African Americans and the wet Left American whites are now going to endure the same suffering that they thought that they were unleashing only on conservative white people – i e. the incompetence of Obama.

The only person who likes him is the equally incompetent Kevin Rudd who, ironically, has been shamefully and humiliatingly spurned by Obama.

I could not believe it back then. That the Democrats had painted them selves into a corner where all they had to choose their candidate from was the FIRST, black or female it didn't matter much, they were both equally hopless.

It probably wouldn't have happend, if their candidate had not virtually had to win. They would have had to stand someone with some savvy if the other lot had a decent candidate. I suppose that's another thing to blame Bush for, setting the stage for this real catastrophe. Then they make it worse, & bring hillery in as well.

Talk about yes minister. It is as if the nation had decided to commit suicide

you loons choose today of all days to launch your braindead attacks on obama. your timing is impeccable.

Just stating the facts man, just the facts.

Hasbeen, the facts man, observes only a savvy white man capable of leading the US, and without the burden of HILLERY, probably owing to her ravine-ous behaviour, that risks precipice-it-is brinkmanship.

Hurtling toward suicide, perhaps the US could take Hasbeen and Leigh with them, and reduce the cost of the ordnabce, along with the retiring of some significantly pestiferous emissions.

The US is a great county and Barack Obama is a great President.

But I agree that the spiteful little Leigh should disappear from OLO - you would be doing us all a favour.

Obama passed his health care bill. He's taken a firm stand with Israel over is illegal settlements - hence Ariel's low-brow attack. Obama is so much better as a President than Bush.

Amazing.

Obama comes in with the economy in dire straits, and promptly takes steps to save it, at least so far.

He sets a date for the withdrawal of troops from Iraq, where his hick predecessor had got them so bogged down.

He comes to power with one of the worst health systems in the affluent world, and today he can offer health coverage to thirty million more people.

He is standing up to the bullies and warmongers in Israel.

He has a rag-tag bunch of ratbags and fruitcakes snapping at him, making almost treasonable demands and remarks, trying to make their own country ungovernable.

Then we get a few armchair ratbags out here having a go at him. I'm inclined to agree with the usually delusional Ngarmada that there be racists in our midst. It all must be so easy, ay ?

Joe

David Jennings,

Yes, Leigh is basically a cyber-bully.

Peter Humes is correct.Both Bush and Obama should be held accountable for illegal wars.The USA is an absolute mess suffering looting from foreign corportates who also instigate wars for profit.

Israel wants to invade Iran under false pretences.These wars are due to peak oil and the Corporate energy suppliers want it all.War is not the solution.

OLO has been allowing an increasing amount of stream of consciousness ranting of late but this has to take the cake as the most inane, incoherent amalgam of prejudiced invective yet. To seriously give credence to the BIRTHERS makes this article beyond contempt!

Oh please, both Obama and Bush have followed a rather consistent tune.

And as far as I'm concerned, BOTH deserve our scorn for the way they treat the rest of the world- especially us and its other Western allies- by trying to dump Guantanamo inmates on other nation's publics to which they were supposed to be friends with.

But let me ask you- with friends like these, who try to con you into taking potential terrorists into your house so it can wash its hands of them, and is making itself and its friends enemies of the world by its reckless and often illegal actions- how exactly are we safer by sticking to these people?

I think Rudd should use the snub as an excuse to pull out of Afghanistan- after risking our troops and putting a big crosshair on our heads for the terrorists JUST to support this country, all they did was stab us in the back.

Israel seems so determined to not only break laws but out to make itself hated by all and sundry.

Not only have they made a sucker of Silly Hillary, but instead of being even officially decent to US Vice-President Joe Biden, Israel has given him the dirty finger by deliberately announcing the construction of 1800 new Israeli housing units in East Jeruselam.

Historical academics may well ask why Israel is so much out to make herself even more unpopular, just as Biden for the US was set to announce a new round of democratic proximity talks with the Palestinians.

According to the Guardian it seems Israel has been doing its dammdest to prevent the establishment of a two-state solution for the Palestine area, only making it harder for Israel herself as she grows more and more globally unpopular

It didn’t take long for smear and false accusations of racism to be launched against me. Allow me to confuse my accusers with some facts:

1. BHO may or may not be a practicing Christian today
2. His father and step-father were both Muslims and hence he was seen by other Muslims as a fellow Muslim
3. He attended both a madrassa and a Catholic school in Jakarta. In both schools he was enrolled as a Muslim;
4. His mother was an atheist not a Christian

The above gives rise to two questions:

(a) Assuming he did convert, when and where did he do so? and
(b) If he did convert, then he is surely a murtadd (an apostate), which
under Shari’a law the punishment is the shedding of his blood.

Johnathon's recent comment inspires just one question:
What the hell is going on in that brain of yours?

What in the world does it matter whether he is a convert to Christianity? And, what does the fact that he may or may not have converted from Islam and therefore may need his blood spilled have to do with anything?
This is getting more bizarre by the post.

Either which way Jonathan, most of us think that your article is nonsense and that you are an idiot for writing it. Its very clear that Obama is a Christian. You appear to be trying to smear him by suggesting that he is a Muslim - but there are many of us who would have ABSOLUTELY NO PROBLEM WHATSOEVER WITH A MUSLIM PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES. And I am a white, middle-aged man. We're not all bigots.

So why don't you take your nasty little agenda somewhere else?
You might also want to read this interesting book:
http://www.israelsoccupation.info/content/books-description

Jonathon,

We don’t get many contributors responding to criticism of their articles. The two previous posts should tell you why.

We are currently going through a patch where we have a surfeit of left-wing loonies who loathe anyone they don’t agree with.

The second post after yours is from David Jennings, who likes to accuse other people of playing the man instead of dealing with the subject. How he excuses himself from this trait when he calls what you wrote “nonsense” and abuses you by saying: “ that you are an idiot for writing it” is known only to him.

Graham Young has received complaints from contributors who have been less abusive than Jennings. I suggest that you make a complaint to him, too.

Jennings is one of the new-comers to OLO whom I hope soon drops off like a dag from a sheep.

We need well-written and well argued pieces like yours. Keep them coming

Always classy and eloquent Leigh ;-)

There is no substance to Jonathan's argument and his post is just an attempt to smear Obama by suggesting that he is Muslim. That, in of itself is an attempt to pander to prejudice. Luckily, most of us are not prejudiced against people of other races. Does that include you Leigh?

I've just been reading this thread. Hard to find someone who isn't abusing someone else. If it doesn't stop I'll start removing posts and posters from this point on. And for those of you who mightn't know I'm the moderator.

The two current reports comprehensively discrediting this article, and corresponding views of clearly racist bigotry presented by posters comments, are;

[1] the decision by the US Govt, just handed down, to pass Health reform as introduced by the Govt of Barack Obama, after the first raising of the issue some century ago, and attempts to address it, of some half century duration, and,

[2] the finding just brought down for Mr Trevorrow, dismissing the appeal of the South Australian Govt, against the compensation awarded to him for his claim relating to his identification as one of the Stolen Generation.

This annihilation of the assertions and contentions exemplifies such patent bigotry for the malice it is. Although as this phenomenon is known, I doubt these achievements defining current benchmark of their issues, will observe such phenomenon relenting for a nanosecond, such is the rapacious nature of its malaise.

But Graham, it's been so entertaining!

Besides which, it seems to me that all comments have been more or less redundant since the first post, which pretty well said it all.

I've removed a number of posts. Anything else that is posted that is less than civil will be removed, and the poster suspended. "Less than civil" includes any personal criticism. You can criticise what someone says, but you are not entitled to call into question their bonafides. Good faith is to be assumed, even if you think it doesn't exist. Readers can make up their mind whether someone is acting in good faith or not.

I realise that we normally allow some personal criticism, but this thread has completely gone off the rails, so in this case the personal criticism is out of bounds.

Well that's an improvement Graham, perhaps you could review all the other articles and posts where bigots, especially racist, have been systematically denigrating anyone that doesn't conform to their ideologically dysfunctional views.

In my experience there are people who hold all points of view who denigrate others, and you have denigrated others on this forum. We try to allow robust debate, in the manner of a public meeting. Just as you get the odd loony at a public meeting who asks long rambling questions or makes long rambling statements, we get them here. They have a right to their point of view.

What no-one has is the right to foment a riot. And when that happens, the shutters come down. I'd like to think that people intelligent enough to want to be involved in this forum could behave with enough civility that the discussion doesn't become unmanageable, but that does not always prove to be the case.

Now can we get back to discussing the article? Lack of relevance is one of the things that is against forum rules.

I agree with the writer. Great article, great perception, great presentation and thorough.

hi Graham ... now watch the abuse.

With the greatest of respect Graham I think that the decline in civility on this forum relates to the tone of the article. You have published an article that begins with the line, “"Buck Farrack" is a hugely popular car sticker in the Commonwealth of Virginia...” and the article contains a number of cheap shots aimed at Barack Obama and its overriding theme is that President Obama should not visit Australia. The article states, “[B]y disappointing American working families on both jobs and health care, he has shown himself to be a colossal failure.” This is actually quite ironic considering the date on which it was posted. But the author then posts a comment suggesting that President Obama is a Muslim – moreover that he has concealed his Muslim identity and that this is sinister.

In this context it isn’t hard to see why this article is controversial. Nor is it hard to see why the debate can get quite heated on this topic specifically or on similar topics. I do understand that you are not endorsing the sentiments of the author

I do take your point with respect to maintaining civility on Online Opinion. But at the same time, there are quite a number of racist or semi-racist comments that are made on OLO and which understandably cause offence. I think you have to allow for the fact that in confronting racism some users will have an emotional reaction first and an intellectual reaction second. So combating incivility but not combating racism seems quite wrong.

It wouldn’t be fair to exempt these comments or the users who consistently make them from challenge. If we fail to challenge racist remarks, and just let them remain on cyberspace where they offend others, then this can be tantamount to endorsing them. We can’t just sit idly by and let others be denigrated on the basis of their race or ethno-religious background – I’m commenting here on some posts that I’ve seen in other threads and the author’s post in this one.

I think it’s worth considering how an average Muslim person would feel if they read the author’s post. Its one thing to have a strident view it’s another thing to be deliberately cruel. Given the amount of racist material that does get posted on OLO its worth considering the impact that this does have on non-white users and even white users. Who would want to be associated with racism? Who would contribute to the forums or articles if their ethnicity is going to be attacked? I think that this is a relevant consideration in this context because it has arisen in the article and the author’s post

I think that Ngarmada makes a fair point, and it’s one that he has brought up before – that it is one thing to talk about civility but it’s another thing to either allow racism to go unchallenged or to allow it to escalate.

On OLO I’ve seen a contributor get severely attacked in a forum because he happened to be Muslim. In that instance his Muslim identity had nothing to do with his article. But it was used by a poster to discredit him. I have seen another contributor referred to as less than equal as an Australian because of her race. http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=10174&page=0 I’ve seen one user chase and harass a female user from thread to thread. Unsurprisingly she now appears to have left. I have seen another user, in another thread, call for “A final solution to the Black Problem.” I’m not sure how you read that but I read that as being fairly sinister. http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=10150&page=0

In my opinion, it is one thing to liken OLO to a town hall. That’s fair enough there should be a broad church of opinion. But it’s another thing to allow racist viewpoints to congregate. Legally, the Silberberg decision suggests that OLO isn’t liable for racist posts that are unlawful under the Racial Discrimination Act or the Anti-Discrimination Act. But ethically, to have knowledge of this material and to do little seems wrong.

Again, its just my opinion, but I wonder why the author of this article, in response to a number of flame attacks from forum users, decided to rely on a Barack-as-a-Muslim smear in order to get some credibility back. Did the author think that he could exploit racial or ethno-religious prejudice to advance his own standing? If so, what does that say about OLO and its users?

Well said David J.

This article makes Andrew Bolt appear the paragon of factual research, but then, that is OLO all over: from the sublime to the gutter.

Our Editor in Chief has never let trash get in the way of attracting attention, that he then complains about the low level of discussion generated by such spurious articles is simply disingenuous.

I should not have to point out that Obama was handed the most poisonous of chalices, the campaign mounted by Republicans against him the worst smear effort in American history yet, despite this, has achieved (for the USA) a health care program that brings America into the 20th century - still has a ways to go, but now 30 million people (more than the population of Australia) can access health care where they were prevented from so doing in the past.

What David Jennings and Severin said.

Yes Obama is a total failure.

His health care is fraught with impossibility and the US probably will never see it's actual implementation.

The only bipartisanship about it was the opposition to it.

The next Senate elections will see the Republicans in control and the great likelyhood the provisions of Obamacare overturned with a simple majority. It would have been easier if Obama had used the Democrat super majority to enshrine the legislation so that a simple Senate majority wouldn't be able to overturn it but unfortunately for him Republicans and Democrats joined together in opposition.

Hah some success eh?

Obama won't release copies of his Passport? I didn't know that. Is it true?

Ngarmada,'racist bigots have been systenatically denigrating people', now that's a very disturbing general ascusation. Can you back it up with specifics?

Keith,

Ngarmada decides who is a racist, and Graham doesn't seem to mind people being called racists. However, if we call the likes of Ngarmada names, that's not OK. Mac calls me a cyber bully; I call him a milk sop and hope that he won't pee his pants, and my post gets deleted. The post calling me a cyber bully remains intact.

I think it is probably best to just express your opinion then move on without taking any notice of what others think of your opinions. Why people want to rubbish somebody else's opinions instead of expressing their own which makes it clear what they think is beyond me. But that's the way things are on OLO.

Best to ignore the lot of them.

David, your links do not go to specific posts. In fact your post is a bit light-on with specific details. What poster has been hounded-off? What were the comments about the contributor's muslim religion? Links to specific comments and names please.

I've read the paragraph where the term "final solution" is used and I don't read it as sinister. It is an unfortunate choice of phrase but does not appear to have any intended reference to the holocaust in it.

There are a lot of people on this site who hound others. Look at Severin in the comment above. She's always turning-up to have a go at me irrespective of the issue. It's tiresome, but it says more about her than it does about me.

I also have people question my motives because of my religion - check out http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=10176#165052 and http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=10176#165380. I cannot see any reason to stop people doing that, although it can get to a point where it constitutes flaming, when I will act. But public life is like that, and anyone who posts on this or any other forum is involving themselves in public life.

I also find it odd for you to complain about Ariel because he has correctly reported what is on bumper stickers and has opinions about Obama that you don't like. I'd agree that the comment on the thread is bizarre though.

GrahamY

<< Look at Severin in the comment above. She's always turning-up to have a go at me irrespective of the issue. It's tiresome, but it says more about her than it does about me. >>

I am honoured by your singling me out of a number of posters who disagree with you on certain topics and aren't intimidated from presenting their point of view.

Any reasonable person would consider the article written by J J Ariel to be offensive bordering on defamatory of Barack Obama. This is MY opinion nor am I alone in this POV - that you take my opinion as a personal affront says far too much about the CEO of OLO.

Severin,

"Any reasonable person would consider the article written by J J Ariel to be offensive bordering on defamatory of Barack Obama."

Why have we never been informed just what an oracle you are? It is quite clear, even on OLO, that like most things, opinion on anything is split 50-50. If you keep thinking that you know who is and who is not a "reasonable person" based purely on your opinions of everything, I suggest that you get yourself a body guard if you carry on in the general, physical population in the same manner as you do on OLO.

Don't be too pleased about being 'singled out' by Graham. He is a very mild-mannered man generally, and you need to look out if he actually names you.

Graham,

Rather than escalate matters on this forum I will email you privately at some point in relation to the matters I have raised. The harrassment of the female poster was fairly prolonged and I don't think its fair to call it simple hounding.

In relation to the "final solution" post - the term 'final solution' is the name that the Nazis gave for the final stages of the Holocaust. This is common knowledge. Moreover, in the years leading up to WWII there was much written in Germany about the 'Jewish problem'. Can you see the clear parallel between 'Jewish problem' and 'black problem.' Given that he's also talking about genocide, albeit an anti-white one, its kind of hard to miss the reference. Add to that the fact that the poster has been on the Stormfront website it seems pretty obvious. I would suggest that the name Stormfront references Stormtroopers ... and not the Star Wars variety.

*Yes Obama is a total failure.*

He is? Lets look at bit of history here.

Clinton leaves the White House, with a budget surplus and a
sound economy. What has been the Republican focus? Oral sex!
They sure taught American kids all about it :)

George and Dick take over, Rove scores a few goals for them,
with his "Osama under the bed" strategy. Little old ladies
are sucked in. George tells us that he talks to the lord
for advice.

Eight years later, America is in the gutter, broke, on the
verge of a global depression. The lord clearly did not
give Mr Bush any good answers! The place is a mess and it
will take years to sort it out. The Republicans decide
to solve it all by holding tea parties. Sarah the hunter
is standing by, she will sock it to em.

Obama wins office, against all odds. Its a great, well organised
campaign. In his first year he shows great judgement.
Rather then the lord, he confers with some of the smartest
in America, understanding that great ideas can come from
anywhere. Innovation, technology and venture capital is
what will save America, he pushes ahead on those fronts,
plus finally brings America to first world standards,
with a medical care for all. Within a year, the stockmarket
rises 60%. Keith's advise about sitting on those gold bars,
was clearly flawed judgement, as is his opinion about Obama.

Yabby I was wrong about shares but gold's done well ... but not as well as billiton shares ...

Just shows I'm human, can err and I can accept my mistake.

The matters of little import.

But to suggest an error in financial judgement means I'm wrong on other matters is just plain idiotic!

Please explain to me with conditions today in the markets similar to those of two years ago, albiet the markets aren't at the same peaks, why you consider shares are safer than gold. Note all that money Obama threw at the banks hasn't reduced the toxic debt on their balance sheets? Why's unemployment still rising in the US. Explain why the housing market in the US isn't recovering. Explain why the Glass-Steggal act hasn't been re-instated and the Community Re-Investment Act hasn't been scrapped? Explain why Obama is still pouring money into Fannie and Freddie?
Explain why Obama had to outlaw government funding of abortion in the US? Explain why Obama used 'add ons' to buy the votes of Democrat Senators so as to obtain passage of his health plan? Explain why further legislation is required to implement Obama's health policy? Tell me, if Obama's health plan has been successfully legislated, why a vote was forced over parts of the plan in the Senate again last night ... and why still more legislation is required? Tell me, if Obama's plan is so successful, why there is almost universal opposition to his plan in the US population and why so many Democrat Senators are expected to be dumped at the next election? Tell me why 35 Democrat Senators voted against Obamas plan?

If Obama is a one term President, as is likely, will that mean he's a successful President? If at the next Senate elections the Republicans gain a majority and dump Obama's heath legislation will that mean he isn't a lame duck president and still successful?

Come on Yabby, show some thoughtfulness rather than a childish 'nah nah nah I'm right you're wrong' display. Come on man rise to the challenge ... like I have.

Keith, Obama's claim was that he has the ability to show good
judgement, something which is rare in US politics. He has been
shown to be correct. BTW, I make the same claim and I too have
been proven correct :)

Yes indeed, some Catholic democrats voted against the healthcare
plan, if it included abortion payments. What that shows is the
power of the religious lobby, still evident in US politics.

Obama at that moment had to look at the big picture, which was
to finally get a healthcare plan signed, even if conceding a point
to the religious fanatics. That shows good judgement.

Obama won office, healthcare was one of his key issues and people
voted for him. Given the huge amount of money for scare advertising
and lobbying by some in the healthcare industry trying to scare little
old ladies, its quite amazing that this baby still got through.

Of course unemployment and housing are still a problem. Are
you showing bad judgement by expecting magic wands to appear?
Economists will tell you that the damage done was so large, it
will take years to unwind the mess. Unemployment will be the
last thing to improve, first confidence and investment need to
be restored.

OTOH we have come a long way in just over a year. The GM saga
was finally sorted out, a global depression was avoided, banks
have repaid a good chunk of what they borrowed. Americans
are finally saving more. Markets are showing confidence once
again.

Its been made rather plain to the Israeli prez that the fanatical
end of Israeli politics has to learn to play fair, when it
comes to a ME solution. All good judgement, IMHO.

Can Obama still be considered a success, if he only serves one
term? Sure he can. The question will be, did he leave America
in better condition then when he took over?

wow vthere are quite a few surprise acceptances by you yabby. It's great to see you admit all religious fanatics aren't right wing.

But I don't think it's good judgement to commit to larger deficits, which Obama's healthcare will bring, when financially you are already up to your eyeballs in massive federal debt.

It wasn't only catholic democrats with an axe to grind over abortion funding who voted against the health plan. Quite a few dem senators worried about re-election voted against the plan as well

Unemployment and defaults on housing aren't just, 'still a problem'. They are an increasing problem and the only grace is that they are not increasing as fast as they once were.

Me magic wands? non non non, in De Gaulle fashion, it was you who said things have improved because the stock market has improved and because the US has introduced a health care system it's now equal to first world standards. Now there's got to be some sort of magic in that reasoning even if it only is relating to the effects of some mushrooms.

Oh why are you so sure you are correct, when the next wave of the financial crisis hasn't hit yet? And why haven't the derivatives markets been closed down?

By the time any realistic assessment of Obama's presidency occurs we'll all be long dead, socialism will have been rejected by the US, his spin merchants will no longer have influence in the media, his media groupies will be laughing stocks, and the US economy will have collapsed under the weight of a health care system it cannot afford.

Similarily it is far to soon to assess the effectiveness of George W. Bush's Presidency.

You are welcome to represent yourself as a modern day oracle but please why don't you address the issues I raised? It'd help with your credibility issues.

*Similarily it is far to soon to assess the effectiveness of George W. Bush's Presidency.*

Perhaps for you Keith :). For the rest of us its pretty straight
forward. Bush jun. inherited an economy in pretty good condition
and left behind him, a total train wreck.

*It's great to see you admit all religious fanatics aren't right wing*.

Err, I have never claimed that.

*Me magic wands? non non non*

Absolutaly Keith, or you would understand why economists fully accept
that housing and employment are at the end of the queue for improvement.
This stuff is regularly discussed on business TV such
as Bloomberg, the business community accepts the reasoning. IMHO
you must be watching far too much Fox TV. Rupert knows how to work
over the trailer park trash and other gullibles, to get his ratings.

*And why haven't the derivatives markets been closed down?*

Because derivatives are important financial instruments Keith. If
I as a farmer want to hedge the price of wheat, or an Australian
bank wants to hedge its interest cover on loans, derivatives is what
is used.

Yabby

Here is the problem I have whenever I attempt to rationally discuss your statements.

I find you never ever discuss those issues I confront you with that undermine your positions or opinions.

You only ever jump onto things that are of minor import and ignore the ramifications to your argument.

Your latest post is a classic example of this behaviour.

Initially you argued Obama's success and that things were improving, presumably because things have changed. When I said the derivatives market hasn't been outlawed, and it was the one thing that magnified the initial corruption in the US, I used that as an example of how Obama had failled.

You've responded by saying the derivatives are good for an Australian farmer and and, well a fairly reasonable, bank. But it's obvious trading vast billions of dollars of dubious derivatives are demonstrably stupid when they've been taken to the extremes, they've reached, by the world banking systems.

You just defended the indefensible because it's good for you and fits your reasoning ... ie that Obama's improved things.

That takes care of the issue of derivatives markets ... now what about those other issues I raised that shows Obama's lack of success.

I suggest you discuss rationally the issues I raise. Doing otherwise, as is your habit, only makes you look like you are willing to hold on to irrational views.

The economists I put most weight on don't agree with the economists you listen to and of many of the economists of today on many many fundamental things ... Mises and von Hayek ... mate try reading them. You'd soon come to agree there wouldn't have been a worldwide derivatives markets nor periodic economic crises if more store was placed on the opinion of those blokes.

But they aren't trendy lefties so ... oh well ... you know. And they would have recognised the abolition of the Glass-Steggall Act and the introduction of the Community Re-investment Act, were the initial basis of the current on-going crisis.

Keith, what your reasoning seems to come down to, is that because
Obama hasn't rushed out to do what you think should be done
immediately, he must be a failure.

Are you even aware of what is going on in the US right now?
Derivatives do in fact play an important part in finance and trade.
Banning them would be downright foolish. The problem with various
financial instruments is that investment banks invent new ones,
far quicker then you could ever regulate for them. Money trades
globally, ban something in NY and people will trade from Iceland
or the Bahamas.

So your shoot from the hip kind of dream prez would be a dismal failure.
What is happening right now and it takes time, is a whole
lot of soul searching and investigating about what actually happenend,
who knew what, who was corrupt and how could it be changed.

Some really knowledgable people are involved in these many debates.
Bloomberg TV carries alot of the Senate and Congress hearings too.

What regulations to change and how best to change them so they arn't
just another loophole, is in for really heavy discussion.

Obama is working on 25 fronts, each one with complex issues involved.
I can't think of a prez who was ever as active and who drew in as
many knowledgable experts in each field, to come up with an informed
judgement and opinion.

Once again, there is no magic wand. 5 years after NO was destroyed,
the place is still not rebuilt. Nobody can run the world's largest
economy into the dirt, like never before, then expect overnight
solutions.

The real danger here is people like yourself, who think that they
know all the answers and have closed their minds to the fact that
they could be wrong and that there are far better answers. That
is why Obama makes for a good prez, he stays open minded and is
prepared to listen and think through all sides of a debate.
Informed opinion makes far more sense then shooting from the hip

Yabby

The major reason Americans are disappointed with Obama is that he isn't carrying on the change he claimed he'd bring. That's the reason for his record low standings in the US polls. But you seem to know better than the vast majority of US citizens who are watching his weaknesses and failures more closely than you.
Do you read the papers in tne US Yabby? You'd know your viewpoint is an extreme one if you did.

Obama's done nothing in re-regulating the finance sector and shows absolutely no intention to do so. In the US mainstream media it is the most criticised of all his failures.

He hasn't closed gitmo and his intent to try detainees in civilian courts NY is a colossal misjudgement ... and recognised as such.

The only answer for controlling derivatives is for a ban on trading in them. You can always raise finance for mosy activities as a business but derivatives aren't about business for individuals or companies. The parcelling and trading of them is about business and profits to financial institutions and banks. Your arguments don't seem to indicate you understand that. You generalise and concentrate on how they raise money. Well wouldn't it be logical for the banks to have money to lend to individual customers before they get involved in suspect trading to raise money? doh!

Btw you haven't addressed the other failures of Obama yet.

Seems to me it's your mind that is closed ... Yabby ... as usual.

Keith, the reason some Americans are angry is because they are human
and need somebody to blame for their own failings. So rather then
admit that they overindulged, overborrowed and under earned, we
just rationalise it all away and blame it on somebody, like a prez
who bailed out those evil banks.

It was in fact the Bush regime who started the process of bailing
out banks and Obama continued it for good reasons. Had nothing been
done, the falling dominoes would have most likely caused a global
depression and most Americans would have lost their 401 pension
savings, or at least tens of millions of them.

As its turned out, most banks have repaid what they borrowed and
keep repaying. If one industry can repay what they borrowed, its
the financial industry.

Yes Obama made promises, like healthcare. He's deliverd in a short
time, where prez after prez in the past failed. He's still got
3 years to deliver on the rest, so stay tuned.

When it comes to the financial sector and its regulation, as it turns
out there are already lots of regulations, Bush and his cronies simply
did not bother to enforce them. Next you have the question of
expertise. You can't put young college grads into the SEC, expecting
them to understand or cope with what are seasoned financial gurus.

So you need rules, but you also need the will to enforce them and
the expertise that goes along with that. You likely won't find them
either, if you are offering peanuts.

*but derivatives aren't about business for individuals or companies*

Rubbish. Hedging is a form of derivative. There would hardly be
an Australian company trading with overseas, who does not hedge.

Until you honestly address the issues I've raised I'm not bothering with you any more. It's pointless talking with you.

You're just another of those dwindling number of pigheaded idiots who comes up with dishonest excuses for every one of Obama's stuff ups or who is intent on ignoring the obvious.

See you Yabby, keep that head locked away from reality now won't you ... it might explode if given full rein.

Aha, so its back to name calling, when Keith trips up over the
hedging question, as he has clearly not done his homework.

So thats another notch on my score sheet, for Keith's bad
judgement :)

Keith, you are making a big mistake in underestimating Obama,
but so learn the hard way, as you did at election time.

'So thats another notch on my score sheet,...'

Gee and I thought we were having a discussion not a competition.

Just goes to show my judgement must be bad, to have expected you to discuss with decency rather than to undertake a discussion with an eye on the 'worm' eh Yabby.

http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/politics/how-obama-moved-in-for-the-kill-20100329-r85u.html

There you go Keith. That is how primitive the republicans got
during the healthcare debate. Sarah and her savages.

Well said Jonathan!
You forgot to mention Bill Ayers and his authorship of "Obama's" book, Van Jones, Sonia Sotomayor, Anita Dunn, Kevin Jennings, Tony Rezko, the fabrication of jobs "created or saved", Acorn, etc, etc, etc, but what you said was spot on.